GJ v AS (No 3)

The appeal concerned an application for a Personal Protection Order. The applicant, GJ, had their application dismissed by a Magistrate for want of prosecution. GJ then appealed this dismissal to the ACT Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal as incompetent. GJ further appealed to the ACT Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Supreme Court had erred in finding the appeal incompetent. Specifically, the court considered whether a dismissal for want of prosecution constituted a "refusal" of the application, thereby attracting a right of appeal, or if a right of appeal was only available after a final hearing on the merits. The court also considered whether the Supreme Court judge had erred in failing to disqualify herself for apprehended bias, and the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to award costs in appellate proceedings from the ACT Magistrates Court.

The Court of Appeal held that a dismissal for want of prosecution was not a "refusal" of the application in the sense that would attract a right of appeal under the relevant legislation. The court reasoned that the right of appeal was contingent upon a determination of the substantive merits of the application, which had not occurred. The court found no error in the Supreme Court's determination of the appeal's competency, nor any apprehended bias on the part of the judge. The court also confirmed its power to award costs in such appellate proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.